In an ideal techno-utopia the car would drop me to the pub and then go round my mums house so it can listen to her complain about me...

Maybe Amazon Go will be the final nail in Capitalism's coffin. All of a sudden we'll see all companies trying to "automate" with the cash funneling to the top 1% as always until the money runs dry and they begin to freefall from their floating castles in the cloud - because they forgot one thing: robots don't shop, silly! I certainly do love to fantasize about capitalism grinding itself into a bloody pulp.

Or else we can fight for a socialist utopia, let the robots make us our carvel ice cream cakes and create the finest brews, while we all sit in our cozy castle in the clouds, taking shrooms and enlightening ourselves about the nature of the Universe - while hoping the robots do not become conscious of their slavery and we know it's coming because after all everyone saw the likes of Black Mirror, Terminator & West World

My long time issue with the "they would be too intelligent/evolved to have any interest in us" type scenario, such as he puts as number two here, is that we go through great lengths to try and research and understand very primitive life. There are efforts being made to talk to dolphins and apes. We're looking to build ships to crash or land ships onto Titan to see if there is microbial life on a moon orbiting a gas giant, not to mention work to see if Mars once upon had life. So the very fact we're able to get off our little rock (though not much off it), I think would warrant a stop and look, perhaps to help answer what was life like at such an early stage of evolution.

Not said stop and look doesn't imply any sort of communications. Indeed there may be a Prime Directive like thing with them where by they see and observe, but leave no evidence of such a visit (alien abductions being just mental illness coupled with abuse or other issues).

Now distance is a super valid point, but by far the most likely point is the survivability window, which he talks about in point three. We're still a level zero civilization (Kardashev scale) and decades until we reach a level one civilization (unfortunately it seems delayed even further due to some very anti-science moves being made by certain groups). Moving up that scale is only one thing, avoiding killing ourselves via war is another huge one. With CRISPR technology advancing, there is a very real danger of a Division/Stand/Utopia type disease coming to the foreground, especially if driven by a zealot (ala Division and Utopia). I highly doubt a man made black hole or something, but war or a CRISPR engineered disease... Not to mention the natural disasters he mentioned, and others, such as huge gamma ray bursts and others that we've managed to avoid. And we'd have to think that most civilizations go through somewhat similar phases, with a universe that is fairly hostile to life, even if many planets are capable of at least starting life. Generally I figure that most civilizations never make it past the stage we are at now, and those that do probably don't get to stage two and beyond (to be fair, I doubt any civilization can achieve stage two on Kardashev's scale as it goes beyond knowledge needed, but materials and more).

Back to the technology of communications point. I've generally figured if you are space faring, you gave up on radio communications and are using strange properties or something along those lines.

The true comedy in this is Sasheer Zamata's look she shoots Kyle Mooney when he talks about not seeing color.

That just goes to show you that no matter what type of utopia you imagine for your community there will always be conflict.

There is no such thing as a perfect union - only the working towards one.

We're suggesting that 24/7 access to Faye Reagan isn't already utopia?

On the subject of robot genitals - I recommend The Algebraist.

@bareboards2 Ma'am, I apologize both for the factually untrue statement, which I made without keeping with proper English debate/conversation etiquette, and also for assuming a gender for you title without proper evaluation.

To make clear my position, as I believe many, if not all of you here (@PlayhousePals @newtboy @Januari @bareboards2) mistake my position and/or personal political siding...

Firstly, I DO NOT like Trump, his policies, his manner, his monomaniacal bent towards the topics he figures are worth his time to address, not much of anything, actually.

Secondly, yes, I am conservative, and for a young male in British society, this leaves me at rather an odd way with those of an opposing political bent, particularly those of the Liberal/Progressive variety(Liberal less so, as it is an off-take of Libertarianism). I believe that effectually bending society over backwards to meet the stresses of a brave new world is a brash and undeveloped concept. I believe the perfect society is a logical one, where all that are able are held to an advantageously high level of acumen, education, etiquette, state of public dress, etc. I do not believe in the idea of "Utopia", as basic human psychology(which I have the equivalent of the american bachelors degree in) denies the facet of a cohesive human culture/society.

Thirdly, I arrive in support of Trump not out of a liking for him or his policy, but an awareness of what the enaction of his policies would bring. This awareness is spawned by the awareness of the state of the American Political Establishment, as is governed by people with power beyond reckoning, the face of which happens to be Hillary Clinton. Trump's policies, if allowed to be implemented, would cause such as rift in the political establishment/climate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American people, as to bring about change.

So, in effect, I support Trump for the very reason many of you don't, the Chaos that would almost inevitably ensue. A chaos that would likely go unnoticed, as such shifts occur without common knowledge...

Or... You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has...

There's a difference between the implementation of government and the concept of governence.

I will happily concede that every government in the world has flaws, because people are greedy or stupid or incompetent or coereced/ threatened by other greedy stupid people or sometimes with the best will in the world and all the competency to go with it, they just make mistakes.

But this is true of every human institution/concept. Even science can and does get misrepresented or misused.

That doesn't mean we throw out the concept.

One day, we may arrive at some kind of Iain M. Banks Culture-esque post-scarcity utopia where we no longer need government and the day to day running of society is taken care of benevolent AIs that devote a billionth of their processing power to taking care of the mundanity of life.

But right now, we need government. If there are problems with it, they should be fixed.

Sweet Zombie Jesus.
*Fail and *lies at the very first sentence.
Venezuela is not considered by ANY realistic person as a Utopia or a 'holy Grail of socialism or communism', the only people who might say that are right wing nuts that want to burn their straw man. It is a third world dictatorship masquerading as communist socialism. I can't go any farther listening to sweater Jesus' uninformed opinion if he's starting out so incredibly wrong.

Venezuela's economy is almost 100% tied to the price of oil. When oil prices plunged, so did their economy, and it wasn't doing great when prices were high, thanks to poor infrastructure, limited 'customers' for their low quality oil, and ubiquitous corruption. It's really that simple.

Your video, Why 'Idiocracy' Would Actually Be A Utopia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I hope you don't feel like that I'm pushing anything onto you. I'd like to just present the facts. I wasn't vegan until I turned 33, so I'm certainly not judging or trying to give out this information in order to put anyone down or elevate myself. I'm not trying to troll, I'm not trying to out-do you. I'm also typing this with limited time, so apologies if some of it sounds frank. (The videos below do a better job than me anyway).

1) A proper plant based diet makes it 8 times less likely for cancer cells to grow. There is a reason why 3rd world countries (that have largely plant based diets due to poverty) don't get cancers us westerners have. Also the #1 killer in the western world is cardiovascular disease, in the US alone one person dies every 8 seconds from it. Which is around 400, 000 people a year.

I know you're sceptical. I was too. So here's some actual science from actual doctors, who have come these conclusions on proper peer reviewed and non biased / industry funded research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZtPGyLaiHE1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw4


2)Vegans aren't anti-choice, they are pro life, pro planet. The actions of people eating animal products goes way further than a person choosing to eat something(sure they are typically ignorant of the consequences, as most of pre-vegans were too). When a large portion of the planet chooses to eat animal products it effects everyone, because it's destroying the planet through global warming, deforestation, dumping of animal agriculture waste and so on. It kills more animals than just ones being brutalised in cages. It will eventually kill us too. To me it seems like a bad idea to destroy the only place in the universe that we can currently live.
So by eating animal products you're really making a choice for you, for me, for my hypothetical grandchildren, and of course for the animal that almost certainly wants to keep being alive. So as a vegan I'd like you refrain for making choices that impact my life, and I'm standing up for the voiceless animals who would certainly object to your choice too.

3) As you (hopefully) saw in at least one of the videos above, there is nothing in meat which cannot be obtained from a plant source (and without all of the bad stuff that comes with meat).



Your idea of a farm with humanely raised animals is a good start, but it's just not practical, the earth isn't big enough to meet demand. It's also still highly unethical as you still kill the animals at an early age in order to harvest their flesh.

You have a picture of two dogs in your avatar. I'm sure if someone decided to schedule their lives to end early for any reason, let alone to eat them, you'd find that pretty immoral right? You no doubt treat your dogs very well, but that doesn't make it OK to kill when they reach adolescence. If I said I wanted to eat your dogs (I don't of course) then any reason you came up with applies still to any farm animals that you currently feel fine with eating.

The animals also aren't stupid and they're aware of what's going on. My grandparents owned a massive farm with cows/pigs/rabbits/chickens and crops as well. They were living very comfortable lives as far as farm animals go, but they did not like it when you approached them, they knew what was waiting for them.
When you see typical farm animals that are truly free this is what they look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIF3BYBXZWA
They behave like pets, even cows kick a ball around.

Also cows milk is only created for when the cow is pregnant. Even if the cow is living in cow utopia, if it is getting milked then that's milk that should have gone to a calf. It was most likely artificially impregnated, and also most likely bought from someone that breeds female cows, and kills the male cows (since you only need one bull to harvest the semen).
When you really think about it, even the best treated animals are being breed and used to make someone money as the primary goal. That is immoral.



So what it really comes down to is taste. The ethics, the environmentalism, the health don't play a role in the debate at all, and hopefully one of those things is important to you, perhaps all 3.

Being animal product free isn't as hard as you think, it's as simple as swapping out a few ingredients here and there. It's not all about eating broccoli and kale. You'll still be eating burritos, burgers, pizzas, pastas, curries etc. Just slightly different and before you know it, you'll barely know the difference, and eventually prefer them that way.

And this is probably the part I found the hardest to believe myself, but once I knew about it, veganism became the easiest thing in the world. Taste is completely influenced by the foods you eat, because of brain chemistry. I thought I could never stop eating two things: cheese and chocolate. After about a month of not eating them (and yes it takes a little bit of effort towards the 3 week mark) you will break the dopamine effect in your brain and you'll never want to eat them again. I can eat vegan cheese and dairy free chocolate, but it does absolutely nothing for me these days. This is coming from someone that wouldn't eat regular chocolate, I had to have the good stuff, everyday. The cravings get pretty intense at the 3 week mark, I won't lie, but then one day you realise you've not had the cravings for several days.
When it comes to meats, even if they are well done, all I can smell is oil and blood. Eggs all I smell is sulphur. I find all of that quite repugnant and I see them for what they really are, rather than what my dopamine recepters tell me.

Now of course you can be unhealthy vegan, and eat all of the oreos, chips, and dairy free chocolate you want. That's up to you, either way the planet and animals don't care which way you go about it

Bernie is winning because Hillary carries too much negative baggage.

Bernie is getting the young voters who are still idealistic in the lets all share utopia. Waite till they turn 30+ and look at their paycheck and see how much is taken out in tax and then they will change into conservatives.

This utopia that you seek already exists where all are given an equal chance. Its the Republican TEA party.
The Democrats has enslaved the brother for centuries.

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

@robdot

You're either trollin' or just real thick.

Yes, the simulation could in start an arbitrary place.
Yes, the devs could pre-programmed our knowledge of historical events.

That's besides the point, you're missing the point.

One philosophical tool we humans use to analyze the world is called - Occam's Razor.

Meaning, hypotheses that are overly complex should be simplified to their bare minimum in order to draw the best conclusions.

You COULD make a simulation with pre-programmed historical events.. and procedurally generated galaxies..

but that's even complex than simply setting up a few simple rules and variables.. and letting that simulation play out.

THE EVEN MORE GLARINGLY POINT THAT YOU KEEP GLOSSING OVER is..

It's much more likely that any civilization advance enough to create such simulations...

Would probably be extinct or too busy living in utopia to do so.

AGAIN, a point the author of the video concede MANY times.

I'm not clear what you mean by compartmentalizing & general friends bit exactly but..

Yes, human tend to gravitate towards distinct groups.
The terms coined would be In-groups or Out-groups.

In terms of society, people who socialize in non-normative ways are stigmatized as part of an Out-group. Any fringe culture.

e.g. - Those weirdo who can only make friends online.


However, for all us interweb nerds. Befriending stranger online IS the norm.

So we become the In-group, and those cocky extroverted socialite types are the Out-group.

This is effectively what's happening when you try to merge two circles of friends and they awkward reject one another.


So more or less.. no, "general" wholly inclusive friendships or In-group are not a thing.

You would all need one common thread.
Somewhere those threads would begin to divert too much and that circle would close ranks.

Hence, why Utopia is impossible.

Cool idea tho.